Santosh Infra Projects, Delhi V. ITO ward-2(4), Ghaziabad

ITA 6243/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8399 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-11-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 22-07-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Revised return
• Section: 154; 139; 143(3); 139(5)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘SMC-1’: NEW DELHI (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.6243/DEL/2019 [Assessment Year: 2014-15] Santosh Infra Projects, C/o-M.K. Bhagat & Co. Chartered Accountants, 302, Triveni Complex, E-10/12 Jawahar Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092 Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Ghaziabad, PAN-ABZFS2041R Assessee Revenue Assessee by None Revenue by Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 16.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement 16.11.2021 ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 31.05.2019 of the learned CIT(A), Ghaziabad, relating to Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing nor any adjournment application has been filed. Perusal of the order-sheet shows that this appeal was fixed on a number of times and was last fixed for hearing on 2 ITA No.6243/Del/2019 17.08.2021. The notice issued by the Registry through RPAD was returned by the postal authority with remark “left”. Again, notice through RPAD notice was sent by the registry fixing the case for hearing today i.e. 16.11.2021. However, the letter was again returned by the postal authority with the remark “left”. The assessee has also not taken any steps to intimate the change of address if any. Therefore, I deem it proper to decide the issue on the basis of material available on record and after hearing the ld. DR. 3. Although, a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, these all relates to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee in confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company and had filed its return of income on 28.01.2015 declaring total income at Rs.9,09,347/- athe same was revised on 08.02.2015 declaring total income at Rs.1,71,467/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) on 15.11.2016 at the returned income of Rs.1,71,467/-. During the course of audit proceeding by the Revenue Audit Party, AG UP, Allahabad it was found that 3 ITA No.6243/Del/2019 assessee had filed original return of income on 28.01.2015 (belated return) and same was revised on 08.02.2015 declaring total income at Rs.1,71,467/- after deducting remuneration of Rs.5,85,234/- which was not claimed by the assessee in original ITR. As such revised return should not be allowable as per section 139(5), but income at Rs.1,71,467/- was assessed by the department as per revised return. The above amount of Rs.5,85,234/- deducted as remuneration required to be disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee. Thus difference of Rs.7,37,880/- should have been brought to tax by the department. Since, the mistake is apparent from record and same is rectifiable u/s 154 of the IT Act, 1961, the Assessing Officer in the order passed u/s 154 of the Act determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.9,09,347/-. 5. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by observing as under:- Ground nos. 2 to 8: The appellant has challenged the order passed u/s 154 contending that reasonable opportunity of being heard has not been given to the appellant. According to the appellant only mistake apparent from record can be rectified. Examination of facts reveals that appellant filed belated ITR u/s 139(5) on 28.01.2015 declaring a total return of Rs.9,09,347/-. The said ITR was revised on 08.02.2015 to reduce the total income at Rs. 1,71,467/-. The AO completed assessment u/s 143(3) accepting the returned income. The overlooking of mandatory provision of law i.e. 4 ITA No.6243/Del/2019 accepting the revised return for a belated return is an act of overlooking of mandatory provision of section 139(5) accordingly comes under the purview of mistake apparent from record. Provisions of section 139 prohibit revision of belated return of income. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ITO vs Ashok Textiles Ltd. (SC) 41 ITR 732, Addl. CIT vs India Tin Industries (P) Ltd. (Kar) 166 ITR 454 and CIT vs Peirce Leslie & Co. Limited (Mad) 227 ITR 759. Keeping in view above position of law and facts of the case it is held that there is no aberration in the action of the AO rectifying the order u/s 143(3) u/s 154. Thus, these grounds of appeal are dismissed. 6. I have heard the ld. DR and perused the record. I do not find any error in the order of the ld. CIT(A) in upholding the rectification order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 154 of the Act. I find the ld. CIT(A) while deciding the issue has relied upon various decisions and there is nothing on record to controvert the finding given by the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Accordingly, I uphold the same and the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. The Order was pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing itself i.e. on 16.11.2021. Sd/- Sd/- [KUL BHARAT] [R.K.PANDA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Delhi; Dated: 16 th November, 2021 5 ITA No.6243/Del/2019 f{x~{tÜ? f{x~{tÜ?f{x~{tÜ? f{x~{tÜ? fÜA fÜA fÜA fÜA P.S P.SP.S P.S Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi